Blofeld

Steve is just chomping at the bit to let the Shia militias loose on Al-Anbar province. He is just an un-reformed cold war warrior at heart. I actually have a different viewpoint. Siding with the Shiites will just ensure Shia dominance over Iraq. That will result in an Iraq which is allied with Iran, which also has a shiite majority. That would be unpalatable to the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia and yes, even Syria. A different strategy would be to back the Sunnis. They already have a strong base in Al-Anbar. It may be a tough sell, since Sunnis have been bearing the brunt of american counter-insurgency efforts, but they also know that a permanent Shia-run government in Iraq is not in their best interests. A Sunni led Iraq, at this point, would not be pro-U.S., but it would counterbalance Iran, which would, more or less, restore the pre-2003 balance of power in the region. Now some people may ask: "Why go to war to replace one Sunni dictatorship with a different Sunni dictatorship?" To which I can only reply: "Welcome to the wonderful world of middle eastern politics."

I am looking forward to trying those out.

My personal preference would still be for a real world setting (even if the actual chances of a real invasion of Syria in 2007 are rather remote) rather than a fictional setting. I doubt most potential customers will care about the backstory or even the total lack of one, as long as the game is well made. On the other hand, I presume that whether the US forces are attacking "Syria" of "Arab country #1", the terrain, forces and gameplay will be the same and the player will not notice any diference. Therefore the decision of whether to go with a real or fictional setting should be based solely on which way will generate more sales of CMSF. Your loyal customers will buy and enjoy the game either way and we know that more sales of CMSF means more CMx2 games coming out in the future (including maybe, CM:Vietnam )

Does that mean that Iran is now part of the "Coalition of the Willing"? :confused:

I don't know if my eyes are playing tricks on me, but is that soldier wearing blue shorts?

TIME thinks the bomb attack may signal the resurgence of Islamic resistance to the Assad regime. Why Syria may be the real victim of the attack That would play directly into Battlefront's original backstory of an Islamic coup in Damascus followed by a UN/NATO invasion to restore a "legitimate" government.

I sincerely hope not, I have little interest in invading the "Islamic Republic of Arabistan". In real world terms, what would make you take such a step? Looking at the current international situation, I would say the chances of a real war between Syria and Israel or the USA before 2008 are very slim.

Wel, if an Arid CADPAT set in size 7044 jacket and 7034 trousers came my way... who knows what doors that would open </font>

Any chance Canadian troops may make it in?

great job rudel.dietrich on the syrian TO&E If Syria has 75+ BMP-3, I don't see how Battlefront can leave it out.

This may be irrelevant, but it shows the organization of a typical Iraqi infantry brigade down to the squad level in 1991. I don't know how closely this matches up with Soviet TO&E, but it would give an indication whether Arab armies stick closely to the Soviet model. from: Winning in the Desert II

:eek: happy days are here again... :cool: you know we will hold you to that, don't you.

That's what I thought, but it does not hurt to ask. Thanks.

Steve, you neatly avoided answering the question Is the T-80/90: A) definitely out, because you don't think Syria has any or it's too late to get them into the game anyway if you want to ship before 2008; or definitely in, because you think Syria probably has them or it would be cool to watch them brew up; or C) probably not in, but may be included if you get more reliable info; or D) no comment.

The relationship between Russia and Syria has been warming up. I also found an article hinting at possible arms sales and Russian naval bases in Syria: I don't know how reliable this analysis is, but what I really want to know is whether Syria is presumed to have T-80 and/or T-90 tanks and whether they will be included in CMSF. Here is the link: Syria no arms deal

it's an interesting question. I have looked around and it is clear that sandbags are used around bunkers and strongpoints, but for trenches, the answer is not clear. I found this article on Russian defensive doctrine in the desert, which presumably Syria would follow, which seems to imply that sandbags are used around trenches, but it's not that evident. Desert Defense and Surviving PGM's: the New Russian View

That's surprising since the ME is the one place where "sand" is easy to find. A few more questions: - Will we see sandbags around bunkers? - What about barbed wire? - Finally, what are you doing about roadblocks? They are just a black slab in CMx1, but in RL can represent anything from concrete barriers to burned out cars to collapsed buildings, etc.

Which would make them even easier to spot since, remember, this is a simulated world and not the real deal. If we put a little camo netting over something we might as well have bullseye graphic on it as well The way to fix this is to have a temporary "skin" of ground terrain stretched over the top of the trench. The enemy player would see the skin until the trenches were spotted, then the skin would be removed and the player would know the trenches are there. But this is not an easy thing to do since there is no support in the code for anything even remotely like it. Steve </font>

sounds very good, any screenshots coming?

I presume Strykers will be like german halftracks in CMx1, great for moving troops quickly around the battlefield, but highly vulnerable to any serious enemy firepower.

That is the eternal dilemna, how to make a simulation as realistic as possible and still keep it a fun, playable game. It will be interesting to see how BFC handles it. Will the BFT appear somehow? or will it handled indirectly, as, for example, better command & control for the U.S. forces.

Did one of you make any changes between the two sessions?, for example: 1. was the same person hosting both times? 2. did you change your firewall or router settings?

It was also present in night battles in CM, to be fair, where infantry could shoot at other friendly infantry. </font>

"Friendly fire" is pretty rudimentary in CMx1. It is basically limited to misguided air strikes and errant off board artillery. Will it be more of a factor in CMSF?

I have nothing against WW2, but after 4 years of playing CMBB and CMAK, I need a break. Sure it's an interesting war, but it still represents only 6 out of the 6,000 years that humans have been killing each other in a professional manner, but I digress